I was talking with a former newsman yesterday – a news director and news anchor. He lives way up in the frozen north, right in the middle of Obama territory. He told me that it just cannot be avoided any more – no matter how much he wanted to believe that our national press corps is truly impartial in this presidential race, the obvious blatant bias for Obama simply cannot be denied any more. The media, with exceptions, is in the tank for Obama and the news coverage has been and will be carefully calculated so as to increase the likelihood of Obama’s reelection.

The clearest recent example is, of course, the lack of coverage of Obama’s malfeasance in the Benghazi situation. There’s a cover-up going on. A massive cover-up. Simply put, the documents now exist to show that Obama knew the security situation at the consulate was deteriorating. He new that additional security was being requested and denied. He knew al Qaeda was threatening to attack American interests in Libya. He knew the attack was underway within two hours. He denied the men under attack additional protection from US forces. He knew Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda offshoot was responsible. He knew our Ambassador was missing. He denied these Americans protection. They died. He blamed it on a video, and went to Las Vegas. You will only know the full story if you watch the hated (by the left) Fox News Channel.

Another example? Let’s look at our economy. There’s a very interesting comparison of media coverage of our economy as George H.W. Bush was locked in a battle for reelection with Bill Clinton, and the current situation with Obama, a Democrat, locked in a reelection battle with Mitt Romney. We have just seen the data for economic growth in the 3rd quarter of 2012. We have similar data for the Bush 41. Here you go:

Obama’s 3rd quarter election year GDP 2.0%

Bush’s 3rd quarter election year GDP 2.7%

Got that? The economy was growing 30% faster in Bush’s final year than it is now for Obama. So let’s look at the headlines in The New York Times for the stories detailing these GDP numbers.

First … October 29, 1992. The GDP had nearly doubled to 2.7%:

“GROSS NATIONAL LETDOWN”

Now, last Sunday’s NYT headline on Obama’s 2.0% increase in GDP:

“SLOW BUT STEADY IMPROVEMENT”

Any questions? The bias is clear; and the bias exists because the media needs cover. They promoted this Obama guy right into office without any vetting. Now they realize what an abysmal failure he is, but they have to work hard for his reelection if for no other reason than to save face. The defeat of Obama would be a huge embarrassment to the national media that worked so hard to put him in office. The media would be discredited. They can’t allow that to happen.

Let the bias and the hype continue. The media will pay in terms of public trust … but their man has to be reelected.